October 2016

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Back in 2008, in a piece analyzing Barack Obama's role as community organizer, Bryan York wrote:

Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money. Organizers like to call that “direct action.”

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising. At first, the organizer tackled small stuff, like demanding the repair of streetlights in a city park; later, when the group gained confidence, the organizer could take on bigger targets. But at all times, the organizer’s goal was not to lead his people anywhere, but to encourage them to take action on their own behalf.

Is it not interesting to read those words, understand what they meant then, and apply them to that which is happening now?

“This is a sad day,” Cruz told reporters. “Political discourse should occur in this country without a threat of violence, without anger and rage and hatred directed at each other. We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable. To have disagreements while respecting human beings on the other side.”

Cruz said that “the responsibility” belonged to the “protesters who took violence in their own hands.” But he also suggested Trump wasn’t innocent either.

“But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign,” the Texas senator said. “And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

“I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment,” Cruz added. “When the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence, to punch people in the face. The predicable consequence of that is that it escalates. And today is unlikely to be the last such instance. … That is not how our politics should occur.”

Community organizer may not fit exactly with what Trump is doing... disorganizing may be more apt and appropriate, but is he or is he not agitating?

Saturday, November 28, 2015

With Donald Trump's latest exhibition of crassness, his mocking of a reporter with a serious disability, he's given a gift to those whose sense of decency has given them qualms about the man... he's given them the gift of the last straw... the gift of walking away while decency still exists.

Monday, April 20, 2015

There are certain things that, in a free and democratic society, are simply not up for debate. Racial equality is one of those things, hence why we crack down hard on anyone attempting to spread racial hatred. Vaccines are another one of those things, hence why we’re now passing laws to ban anyone from spreading anti-vaccine lies. A woman’s uterus is also not up for debate. By opposing a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, one is essentially saying that women are not equal to men and thus do not have human rights. How is this any different than racism? Why is this something that should be legally permissible?

Not only is the right to have an abortion a human right, but so is the right to accurate information. The arguments used by the anti-choice crowd are wrong, misleading, and dangerous. We wouldn’t allow people to spread lies about vaccines, so why should we allow people to spread lies about abortion? We wouldn’t allow people to vilify ethnic minorities, so why should we allow people to vilify women who have abortions? When people are allowed to manipulate public opinion against the common good, the results can more dangerous than anyone could possibly imagine. There is a reason that Australia bans hate speech and has strict media regulations: when the masses are exposed to hateful or un-democratic ideas, it can lead not only to things like the Cronulla race riots, but also to things like the Holocaust. In the words of the great human rights activist Tim Soutphommasane of the Australian Human Rights Commission, “genocide begins with words.”

Women who have abortions already tend to face depression and even suicide. Vilification from right-wing Christians increases the depression already faced by said women, and also increases their suicide rate tremendously, in the same way that the vilification of transgender people plays a major role in their high suicide rate. Freedom of speech is a core Australian value, but it’s not the only value that we have. Like all democratic rights, the right to freedom of speech comes with significant responsibility, and it has to be balanced against other rights. People also have the right to be free from lies, hatred, vilification, offense, misleading information, and insults, to name a few things. In a society based on human rights – which, despite everything, I strongly believe that Australia still is – there is absolutely no place for anyone who attempts to argue against human rights. Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to oppose human rights. People who oppose human rights have absolutely no place in a human rights-based liberal democracy like Australia.

I speak for all Australians when I say that, in Australia, it is just common sense that freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, vilify, incite hatred or violence, be impolite or uncivil, disrespect, oppose human rights, spread lies or misinformation, argue against the common good, or promote ideas which have no place in society. The idea that women should not be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies is, without a doubt, an idea that has no place in society. Freedom of speech exists so that people can have civil, polite, and reasonable discussions about issues that are worth discussing – NOT so that people can argue against the common good and/or denigrate the most vulnerable and marginalised members of society. Australia has absolutely nothing to learn from the anti-choice crowd. Tolerating their intolerance would not only be needless, but it would also be harmful and dangerous. Freedom of speech is counter-productive if it’s something that only benefits white men, who already wield the most disproportionate amounts of power and privilege in society. The voices of vulnerable and marginalised groups – for example, women (and especially women of colour) seeking abortions – are drowned out by the voices of rich and powerful white men. It’s time to change that.

The NFL myopically took one risk to avoid another and are now, because they're being forced to due to this 'new' video release, rightfully getting their comeuppance.

Now the question is, might this be the catalyst to effect change in the black community? The answer is, sadly and likely, no.

I get the sense, and I honestly do hope that I'm wrong, way wrong, that had this been anyone other than a black NFL megastar, the proverbial book would've been thrown in that person's direction post haste.

But because the NFL tolerates thug culture, and because sadly society at large does as well, Ray Rice was initially given some leeway... until someone out there decided to go public with how violent the encounter really was.

In a shocking case of “grotesque” misconduct by federal prosecutors, a federal judge in Louisiana has ordered a new trial for five New Orleans police officers convicted for a shooting on the Danziger Bridge on September 4,
2005 — in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — and for a subsequent cover-up. This is another black eye for the Holder Justice Department that the media have barely covered.

Participating in the misconduct that the judge said had created an “online 21st-century carnival atmosphere” was Karla Dobinski, a lawyer in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and the former deputy chief of the section. The reversal of the convictions is what Judge Kurt Engelhardt calls a “bitter pill” for Hurricane Katrina survivors, but his investigation of the matter provides an intensive inside look at the unprofessionalism of some of the lawyers at the Holder Justice Department, and also at the department’s attempts to obscure its misdeeds.Advertisement

Last December, I reported on what Judge Engelhardt called the “skulduggery” and “perfidy” of DOJ prosecutors in a scathing order issued on November 26, 2012. At the time, the lawyers for the defendants had filed a motion for a new trial. They claimed that the prosecutors had leaked secret grand-jury proceedings and engaged in a public-relations campaign to inflame public opinion and sway the jury through anonymous postings on nola.com, the website run by the Times-Picayune.

As a result of the judge’s findings, those two senior prosecutors, Assistant U.S. Attorney Salvador Perricone and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jan Mann, the chief assistant to U.S. Attorney Jim Letten, resigned. Letten himself resigned two weeks after the November order was issued, although he was not accused of making any of the postings himself.

Incredibly, Judge Engelhardt’s latest order, issued last month, indicates that Letten may have had knowledge of Mann’s blogging much earlier than first reported but didn’t inform the judge about it. Mann claims that she told Letten prior to March 2012 that she was also blogging anonymously, but tried “to downplay it.” This was six months before Judge Engelhardt’s November order. Yet Letten made no effort to inform the judge, even though, according to the judge’s opinion, Mann believes that Letten “reported [her blogging conduct] up to other supervisors at DOJ.”

When he issued his November 2012 order, Judge Engelhardt reserved his decision on the motion for a new trial and asked DOJ to do a further, intensive investigation to find out whether anyone else had been involved in these anonymous postings and illegal leaks in addition to the two lawyers who had resigned. The judge suggested that Attorney General Holder “seriously consider appointment of an independent counsel,” a suggestion that Holder “chose to disregard.”

Trying to figure out what the prosecutors had done sent the court “on a legal odyssey unlike any other.” But that legal odyssey led the judge on September 17 to grant a new trial to the New Orleans police officers. It is the first time, according to Judge Engelhardt, that federal “prosecutors acting with anonymity used social media to circumvent ethical obligations, professional responsibilities, and even to commit violations of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

Friday, August 10, 2012

The ACLU has filed a brief in support of the HHS mandate, comparing Catholics to racists.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri recently filed an amicus brief supporting the mandate which requires employers to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization procedures without a co-pay. The case, O’Brien Industrial Holdings v. Department of Health and Human Services, is a challenge by a private company which argues that the contraception rule is a violation of religious liberty.

In its brief, the ACLU compares Catholics to racists, arguing that declaring that you don’t want to support the killing of the unborn with abortifacients is akin to refusing to serve African-Americans.:

Regrettably, not so very long ago, businesses similarly claimed that their right to religious liberty entitled them to discriminate against African-American customers in public accommodations; universities claimed a religious liberty right to discriminate against African-American students; and employers claimed their right to religious freedom entitled them to pay men – who they considered to be the head of household based on their religious beliefs – more than women. Fortunately, in each of these cases, the courts squarely rejected the claims, recognizing that the right to religious liberty does not encompass the right to discriminate against others. This Court should come to the same conclusion here. Indeed, acceptance of Plaintiffs’ claims would not only contravene this clear and consistent precedent, but would also open the door for arguments that countless antidiscrimination statutes should be unenforceable in the face of a claim that the discrimination ismandated by a religious belief.

The ACLJ is representing O’Brien in this case.

“This is the most ridiculous brief I’ve ever read,” ACLJ lawyer Francis Manion told The Cardinal Newman Society. “There’s nothing to do but heap scorn and ridicule on it.”

He pointed out that the irony is that the government has acknowledged the validity of some religious objection. “So is the ACLU saying the government is promoting racism?” Manion laughed. “It floored me when I read it. I could be angry but I just laughed instead.”

He suggested that the ACLU brief was more of a press release garnered to gain attention for the liberal organization rather than a serious legal document.

I'm not so quick to let the ACLU off the hook. I don't think it's a press release garnered to gain attention. I think it's core liberal doctrine.

Faithful people, particularly orthodox, traditional, faithful people, are a threat. And in this day and age, you take out a threat by labeling it racist, homophobic, bigoted.

Fresh from lunch at Chick-Fil-A, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said that officials' public objections to the Christian-owned fast food chain are "chilling."

"Now you have the police power of government intimidating and threatening people, being used to intimidate and threaten people, based on their free speech rights and their religious views," Pawlenty said Saturday of city officials' objections to president Dan Cathy's public disavowal of gay marriage. "I mean it’s chilling. I mean it’s stunning, it is jaw-dropping. And so I think strong people who see this need to stand up and say no we don’t do that in the United States."

...

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday posted on Facebook two pictures of a visit to a Chick-Fil-A in The Woodlands, Tex., where she supported insurgent conservative U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz. She posted the comment, "Stopped by Chick-fil-A in The Woodlands to support a great business."

This whole campaign of intimidation makes you wonder how long it will be until it simply becomes impossible for one to be a traditional Christian and a business owner. If you are forced to believe in gay marriage or be denied restaurant permits, or forced to photograph gay marriages or be sued, or forced to provide products you think are immoral or face government fines, will Christians even bother to open-up shop? We aren’t to that point yet, but if these stories become less like anomalies, and more just the way the business world works, it is very possible.

Where are the open-minded liberals? Where are the tolerant leftists? Where are the fair-minded progressives?

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Bruce Fingerhut in South Bend called my attention to Father George Rutler’s essay in crisismagazine.com (July 13), entitled. “Post-Comfortable Christianity.” Father Rutler is the well-known pastor of the Church of Our Savior in New York City. He is a man of many, many talents, a witty and insightful lecturer, often on EWTN. With his Scot origin, he has been known to appear in the kilt version of the Roman Collar at the Highland Games. Rutler is a convert Episcopal priest who speaks the King’s English, speaks it well and clearly.

The title, “Post-Comfortable Christianity,” Rutler explains, is not used in place of “Post-Christian,” since “nothing can come after Christ,” a profound theological observation in itself. We have lived as Catholics in relative peace in recent times. We think we belong and are accepted by this culture. Indeed, we have sometimes bought an easy version of our faith that requires little sacrifice and no Cross.

We have not had to worry, or so we thought, about ourselves being discriminated against or persecuted. Such despicable activities were, we thought, against the law. They were events that happened “elsewhere.” We never thought that our law could itself be “against the law.” The Third Millennium began with fireworks and Ferris wheels, Rutler commented, but is now “entering a sinister stage.” We have not anticipated that so many Catholics, often public leaders, when it came to a choice between God and Caesar, would opt for Caesar in his worst form.

...

Rutler puts it this way: “If their (Catholics) influence is not decisive, and the present course of federal legislation accelerates, encouraged by a self-destructive appetite for welfare statism on the part of ecclesiastical bureaucracies, the majority of Catholics with tenuous commitments to the Faith will evaporate.” This analysis is the European fate now applied to the Church in the States.

We should be clear, as writers like Paul Rahe have pointed out, that this subjection of Catholicism to the control of the state is being carried out by officials that many of them voted for in great numbers and with enthusiasm. We have not been able to imagine that the Catholic Church in its essential moral teaching would come to be seen as an enemy of democracy and human “rights.” Yet, these new versions of democracy and human “rights” embody positions that diametrically oppose human life, marriage, basic morality, and the nature of transcendence. No one who cannot accept this new version of “rights” will be a member of the new state that has come to exist before our very eyes. The “inversion” of morals is almost complete. It is “sinister.”

William, Paul and James Newland and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who together own Hercules Industries, have no right to conduct their family business in a manner that comports with their Catholic faith.

The federal government can and will compel them to either surrender their business or to engage in activities the Catholic faith teaches are intrinsically immoral.

This is exactly what President Barack Obama's Justice Department told a U.S. district court in a formal filing last week.

Never before has an administration taken such a bold step to strip Americans of the freedom of conscience...

The Newland family owns and operates Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based corporation that manufactures heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. Through their hard work and dedication, and through their willingness to reinvest their own money in building their family business, they have managed to create jobs for 265 people while exerting a positive influence on the communities they serve.

The Newlands believe the morality the Catholic faith teaches them must animate their lives not only within the walls of the churches they attend, but literally everywhere else, as well -- in the way they deal with their families, their neighbors and, yes, their business.

The Newlands sued to protect their free exercise of religion in this regard because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a regulation, under the Obamacare law, that requires virtually all health care plans to cover -- without cost-sharing -- sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

Under Obamacare, businesses that employ more than 50 people must provide their employees with insurance or pay a penalty, and the required insurance must include the mandated cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

At Hercules Industries, the Newlands provide a generous self-insured health-care plan to their employees. It does not cover sterilization, artificial contraception or abortifacients.

...

In response to the Newlands' complaint that ordering them to violate the teachings of the Catholic Church in the way they run their business is a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, the Obama administration told the federal court that a private business has no protection under the First Amendment's free exercise clause -- especially if the business is incorporated.

"The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church," said the Justice Department. "Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer."

"By definition," said the Justice Department, "a secular employer does not engage in any 'exercise of religion.'"

"It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees," said the Justice Department.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

So to reiterate from yesterday, all the president of Chik-fil-A did was defend the traditional understanding and definition of marriage, he never mentioned gays or gay marriage. From the linked interview in that piece, the president's own words deemed controversial by so many are actually quite innocuous:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said [Dan] Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

For those words, the man and the business are being pummelled? Seriously?

What this shows is that the mayor of Boston is misinformed at best or worse, and more likely, an opportunist who thinks inroads can be made here to further an agenda and to pander to those fomenting that agenda.

Here's to the hope that this backfires in the mayor's face and severely.